What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Boston]

nah
I think the point of Hoyts posts was actually to distract from the ass kicking the deniers were handed in those last few pertinent posts

I remember when five or six folks were trying to explain to them that temp drives water vapor and not vapor driving temp

they didn't really get that one either and you know who was of course the last to get it and hurled the most insults and BS in the process

when the simple physics became inescapable there were various efforts of distraction then as well. There must be a deniers hand book or something.

its kinda funny to go back through some of the discussions in this thread and find the same tactics of distraction being applied in the face of overwhelming data supporting the theory of rapid global climate shift

its a political ploy to take over the world
there is a conspiracy
they lied and fudged the data all hundred plus thousand of them over the last 200 years

the list of anything buy science to try and distract from the simple realities of where the science leads is legendary

well worth a few laughs in reading again from time to time

oh well

as Jerry once said

you aint going to learn
what you dont want to know

[Boston]

so I randomly go back and start reading and just as I suggested here is a prime example of how once cornered the deniers dive straight into distractions religion politics change subject anything but admit that they had misread the graphs or simply failed to comprehend the data and been caught

starting with post 2386

Gonzo
Proponents of humans as creators of "global warming" are more emotional than factual. At the same time that they state that humans caused a huge change in climate, they claim the Earth is millions of years old with various geological eras. The planet went through tropical and glacial periods without the intervention of humans. Do they really claim all those processes dissapeared when humans entered the Universe?

__________________

Mark
Its a liberal mindset, Gonzo, just like they want to control the economy they want to believe that we have the power to control the world climate. Fewer freedoms for people that work and think equals more power for

Tcubed
Mark you are so media damaged that there is no point even attempting.. It is a shame this post will appear right after yours, but so be it.

________________________________________________________________

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by troy2000

No, ignorance is not knowing that how the word is used depends on what country you're from, and what language you speak.

I think we were speaking(writing) English, were we not?

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by troy2000

It takes a special sort of amusing paranoia to believe that climatology is a conspiracy to take over the world.

But you've just become exhibit A for my contention that the opposition to AGW in these pages has nothing to do with science. You and your fellow travelers refuse to believe it's real because of cultural and political issues, and the Hell with the science involved.

The simple truth is that if it were George 'Dubya' Bush speaking out about global warming instead of Al Gore, you'd be sucking it up--and calling those who disagree left-wing liberals who want to see the world destroyed.

To quote a president I love and admire,"Well, there you go, again..."

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by Boston

nah
I think the point of Hoyts posts was actually to distract from the ass kicking the deniers were handed in those last few pertinent posts

I remember when five or six folks were trying to explain to them that temp drives water vapor and not vapor driving temp

they didn't really get that one either and you know who was of course the last to get it and hurled the most insults and BS in the process

when the simple physics became inescapable there were various efforts of distraction then as well. There must be a deniers hand book or something.

its kinda funny to go back through some of the discussions in this thread and find the same tactics of distraction being applied in the face of overwhelming data supporting the theory of rapid global climate shift

its a political ploy to take over the world
there is a conspiracy
they lied and fudged the data all hundred plus thousand of them over the last 200 years

the list of anything buy science to try and distract from the simple realities of where the science leads is legendary

well worth a few laughs in reading again from time to time

oh well

as Jerry once said

you aint going to learn
what you dont want to know

I rike-a you. You make-a me raff!

[alanrockwood]

Originally Posted by hoytedow

Using the term billion to denote one million million is just plain ignorant.

Would it help if I pointed out that it was one of the guys on your side of the argument (Jimbo) that introduced this terminology into the recent discussion on this thread? (post #6818)

[alanrockwood]

Earlier I discussed the issue of carbon dioxide leaving the ocean as a result of warming. I pointed out that this effect should only account for about one tenth of the total increase in CO2.

I have now worked out the math. Let me know if you would like me to post it. If there is no interest in seeing the math worked out then I won't post it, because it would be quite a bit of work to do, but if anyone wants to see it I will post it.

[dskira]

Originally Posted by masrapido

No, you ran concentration camps and coercing camps, and let us also make a honorable mention of torture camps too. Then there's the only use of the nuclear bomb, not once but twice, then there's indiscriminate use of depleted uranium bombs in Iraq, Serbia, Afghanistan, and some claim even somalia. There was a lot of democratically applied napalm in various countries of Asia, murder of Prime Minister Aldo Moro in Italy, Guatemala enocide, Uruguay, Argentina, Chile, Panama, Grenades, El Salvador, open support for the putch against Chavez in Venezuela, continuous threats to just about everyone on earth who wants to live the way THEY want to live, disregarding, bastards, the usanian way of life (depravated, sordid and filthy christian ways: prostitution, terror, crime, gambling, exploitation...)

You get the picture.

This is not a way to wrote. You generalize, and that my friend is the start on racism, isolationism, and bigotry.
Are you that alone in your dark little room to wrote this kind of insanity?
Be a little larger that what you wrote, you are far more clever than that.
Show us your true yourself and not the so boring guy writing at noseum gibberish against the US.
Boring my friend and repetitive.
As for Italy, please don't be stupid. You even do not know Aldo Moro. You just read the newspaper and make your own assessment.
And for Chavez, you are going in full paranoia.
May God show you the Light
Daniel

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by alanrockwood

Would it help if I pointed out that it was one of the guys on your side of the argument (Jimbo) that introduced this terminology into the recent discussion on this thread? (post #6818)

Everybody stumbles once in a while, but recovers. I am sure he is right far more often than you. Persistently making the same mistake and refusing to learn from it is not ignorant but stupid. And you are stupid if you think we will EVER kneel to the likes of you. I will bow to Troy2k in respect for him placing himself in danger on our behalf, though, and for that reason only.

[Boston]

but its not every once in a while Hoyt
there is a consistent pattern among the deniers of bringing false or misrepresented data to the table
for instance
in your last you claim that you are sure Allan has been wrong more often than Jim ( a feet of nearly legendary status )
could you please point out an error of Allen's that he has not admitted to and corrected within our discussion concerning the co2 cycle
if you cant then it becomes apparent you are just attempting to distract again with an erroneous claim

sorry to put you on the spot Allan but your description and subsequent explanation was most thorough and after several readings it made perfect sense.
maybe Hoyt just needs to re-read those last few pertinent posts

to answer Allan's more recent question about posting his math in order to further prove the point
I think the larger question isn't whether there is an interest in the information from at least some folks here but whether that information would make any difference at all to a rare few who simply dont care what the science says and wish to believe whatever is convenient.
Obviously presenting a coherent and systematic description of the basics is falling on a few deaf ears, for the rest of us its like preaching to the choir.

I might recommend looking up the term Agnotology (syn tobacco science) at which point you will better understand what these few hold outs here on this thread are up to

what I noticed early on is that there simply no teaching someone what they dont want to know. As you can see after what tantrums may ensue the deniers will just flip subjects in order to avoid the simple truths.

I did a lecture series last year on this subject and we were told specifically to speak to those who are on the fence, the ones who already understand the basic science involved are just taking up seats and those who dont want to believe aren't ever going to no mater how ridiculous some of there views are.

not sure if you read much of the thread before diving in but there have been a few folks to come along who simple disregard the scientific process

for instance
there was a paper introduced that purported to support a concept of co2 saturation

it was refuted admirably by numerous scientists and has been shown flawed in many ways

for instance

Quote:
Why Ferenc M. Miskolczi is Wrong

(c) 2008 by Barton Paul Levenson


Miskolczi [2007] proposes that feedbacks constrain the gray infrared optical depth of Earth's atmosphere to a value close to 1.841. If true this would imply a very low value for climate sensitivity to a doubling of carbon dioxide, contrary to most findings (see e.g. Boer and Yu 2003; Boer et al. 2000; Dai et al. 2001; Delworth et al. 1999; Goosse et al. 2006; Hegerl et al. 2006; Roeckner et al. 1999; Sumi 2005; Washington et al. 2000; Wetherald et al. 2001). However, this conclusion depends on some doubtful assumptions.

1. "According to the Kirchhoff law, two systems in thermal equilibrium exchange energy by absorption and emission in equal amounts..." [Miskolczi 2007]. In fact, Kirchhoff's Law states that for a body in local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE), emissivity and absorptivity must be equal at a given wavelength. Miskolczi confuses emission with emissivity. This can lead to large numerical errors, since emissivity is of course constrained to the range 0 - 1 by definition, but emission can have any nonnegative value, and is typically in the hundreds of watts per square meter for low levels of atmosphere.

2. Miskolczi proposes that when greenhouse gases increase, water vapor decreases. This would seem to violate the Clausius-Clapeyron law, but of course the complexity of atmospheric processes might, in theory, lead to some net feedback of the type described. As an empirical matter, however, �[t]he global trend in precipitable water vapor is found to be 0.9 � 0.06 mm/decade� [Brown et al. 2007]. With temperature rising [NASA GISS 2008], and water vapor rising as well, and at a rate consistent with the Clausius-Clapeyron law and a fixed relation of relative humidity to altitude [Manabe and Wetherald 1967; Inamdar and Ramanathan 1998; Held and Soden 2000], the proposed feedback seems unlikely to exist.

The consequences of this observation alone mitigate strongly against the Miskolczi paper's conclusions. Note, too, that if those conclusions held, it is difficult to see how Earth could have undergone ice ages, or why Venus is as hot as it is.

Miskolczi proposes that the gray infrared optical thickness of Earth's atmosphere is constrained to stay near τ = 1.841. This is noticeably lower than most other estimates; e.g. Hart [1978] estimates this value as τ = 2.49. Taking Earth's radiative equilibrium temperature as 254 K, its surface temperature as 288 K, and assuming the known surface heat loss mechanisms enumerated by Kiehl and Trenberth [1997] (atmospheric absorption 67 watts per square meter, sensible heat 24 W/m2, latent heat 78 W/m2, window radiation 40 W/m2) hold, τ = 2.07 is implied. This is a minor point, but once again points out that Miskolczi's findings are outside the usual consensus.

3. Miskolczi states: "The atmosphere is a gravitationally bounded system and constrained by the virial theorem: the total kinetic energy of the system must be half of the total gravitational potential energy. The surface air temperature tA is linked to the total gravitational potential energy through the surface pressure and air density. The temperature, pressure, and air density obey the gas law, therefore, in terms of radiative flux 4 SA = σ tA4 represents also the total gravitational potential energy."

This would be correct if the Earth's atmosphere were in orbit around the Earth. But the atmosphere rotates with the Earth.

A simple check of this proposition would be to find the gravitational potential and kinetic energies (U and K, respectively) of the Earths atmosphere and determine if the ratio between them is actually 2:1.

The Earth's atmosphere has a total mass of about 5.136 x 1018 kg [Walker 1977, 20]. 99% or so of its mass is in the troposphere and stratosphere, the two respectively constituting 80% and 20%, roughly. The US Standard Atmosphere [NOAA 1976] uses a surface temperature of 288.15 K, a tropospheric lapse rate of 6.5 K km-1, and an isothermal stratosphere at 216.67 K. The present author divided the atmosphere into 20 layers, four of stratosphere on top and 16 of troposphere, and used a simple iterative model to fit the facts listed above:

Table I. Simple Model Earth Atmosphere.
Layer Pressure (Pa) Temp. (K) Altitude (m)
1 2468.6 216.67 26598.2
2 7405.9 216.67 18141.8
3 12343.1 216.67 14759.2
4 17280.4 216.67 12584.7
5 22217.7 216.82 10973.4

6 27154.9 225.30 9668.7
7 32092.2 232.60 8545.4
8 37029.4 239.04 7555.2
9 41966.7 244.81 6667.2
10 46904.0 250.06 5860.4

11 51841.2 254.87 5119.9
12 56778.5 259.33 4434.6
13 61715.7 263.48 3796.0
14 66653.0 267.37 3197.7
15 71590.3 271.03 2634.2

16 76527.5 274.49 2101.5
17 81464.8 277.78 1595.9
18 86402.0 280.91 1114.6
19 91339.3 283.89 655.0
20 96276.6 286.75 215.2

The gravitational potential energy of an object is
U = G M m r-1 (1)

where G is the Newton-Cavendish constant (6.67428 x 10-11 m3/kg/s2 in the SI), M and m the masses of the reference and target bodies, respectively, and r the radial distance from M's center of gravity. For the Earth, M = 5.9736 x 1024 kg. Taking the Earth's volumetric mean radius as 6,371,010 m [Lodders and Fegley 1998, 128), the mean altitudes of the atmosphere layers in the Table I model and their individual masses (5.136 x 1018 kg / 20 = 2.568 x 1017 kg) lead to a total gravitational potential energy of U = 3.210 x 1026 J for Earth's atmosphere.

The mean molecular velocity for a gas is
v = (8 R T / (p MW))0.5 (2)

where v is the velocity, R the universal gas constant (8,314.472 J/K/kmol in the SI), T the absolute temperature, p the circle constant and MW the gas's mean molecular weight. The mean temperature of the model atmosphere in Table I is 249.76 K, which leads to v = 427.6 m s-1 and a total kinetic energy for the atmosphere of K = 4.696 x 1023 J.

The observed ratio of U to K, therefore, is (3.210 x 1026) / (4.696 x 1023) or about 684. This is substantially different from 2.0. Increasing the resolution of the atmosphere model or using local saturated lapse rates for each level makes no substantial difference to this conclusion.

It is therefore impossible not to conclude that the model proposed in Miskolczi [2007] is fatally flawed, and thus so is its conclusion of startlingly low climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2.


References

Boer, G. J., G. Flato, M. C. Reader, and D. Ramsden (2000), A transient climate change simulation with greenhouse gas and aerosol forcing: Experimental design and comparison with the instrumental record for the twentieth century. Climate Dyn. 16, 405�425.

Boer, G. J. and Yu Bin (2003), Dynamical aspects of climate sensitivity Geophys. Res. Lett. 30, 35-1 - 35-4.

Brown, S., S. Desai, S. Keihm, and C. Ruf (2007), Ocean water vapor and cloud burden trends derived from the topex microwave radiometer. Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium 2007, Barcelona, Spain, IGARSS 2007, IEEE International, 886-889.

Dai A., T.M.L. Wigley, B.A. Boville, J.T. Kiehl, and L.E. Buja (2001), Climates of the 20th and 21st centuries simulated by the NCAR Climate System Model. J. Climate 14, 485� 519.

Delworth T. L., A.J. Broccoli, K. Dixon, I. Held, T.R. Knutson, P.J. Kushner, M.J. Spelman, R.J. Stouffer, K.Y. Vinnikov, and R.E. Wetherald (1999), Coupled Climate Modelling at GFDL: Recent Accomplishments and Future Plans. CLIVAR Exchanges 4, 15-20.

Goosse H., O. Arzel, J. Luterbacher, M.E. Mann, H. Renssen, N. Riedwyl, A. Timmermann, E. Xoplaki, and H. Wanner. (2006), The Origin of the European 'Medieval Warm Period.' Climate Past 2, 99�113.

Hart, M.A. (1978), The Evolution of the Atmosphere of the Earth. Icarus 33, 23-39.

Hegerl, G.C., T.J. Crowley, W.T. Hyde, and D.J. Frame (2006), Climate Sensitivity Constrained by Temperature Reconstructions over the Past Seven Centuries. Nature 440, 1029-1032 (letter).

Roeckner, E., L. Bengtsson, J. Feichter, J. Lelieveld, and H. Rodhe (1999), Transient climate change simulations with a coupled atmosphere-ocean GCM including the tropospheric sulfur cycle J. Climate 12, 3004�3032.

Held, I.M. and B.J. Soden (2000), Water vapour feedback and global warming. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 25, 441-475.

Inamdar, A.K. and V. Ramanathan (1998), Tropical and global scale interactions among water vapor, atmospheric greenhouse effect, and surface temperature. J. Geophys. Res. 103, 32177-32194.

Kiehl, J T. and K.E Trenberth (1997), Earth's Annual Global Mean Energy Budget. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. 78, 197-208.

Manabe, S., and R. T. Wetherald, (1967), Thermal equilibrium of the atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity. J. Atmos. Sci. 24, 241-259.

Miskolczi, F.M. (2007), Greenhouse Effect in Semi-Transparent Planetary Atmospheres. Idoj�r�s 111, 1-40.

NASA GISS (2007), Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index in .01 C. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ta...LB.Ts+dSST.txt, accessed 7/02/2008.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (1976), U.S. Standard Atmosphere. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Sumi, A. (2005), Global Warming Simulation due to the High Resolution Climate Model by Using the Earth Simulator. Ann. Rep. Earth Simulator Center Apr. 2004 - Mar. 2005.

Walker, J.C.G. (1977), Evolution of the Atmosphere. NY: MacMillan.

Washington, W. M., J. W. Weatherly, G. A. Meehl, A. J. Semtner, T. W. Bettge, A. P. Craig, W. G. Strand, J. Arblaster, V. B. Wayland, R. James, and Y. Zhang (2000), Parallel climate model (PCM) control and transient simulations. Climate Dyn. 16, 755� 774.

Wetherald, R.T., R.J. Stouffer, and K.W. Dixon (2001), Committed Warming and its Implications for Climate Change. Geophys. Res. Lett. 28, 1535-1538.


BPL
8/06/2008

I read the paper and found eq 4 to be flawed, so naturally I wrote the author who refused to print a correction even though the paper says equation 4 is fundamental to the understanding of the work

apparently not if its flawed and the author refuses to print a correction

the list of examples like this is endless and numerous reference can be made to these kind of blatant errors being injected into the pseudo science of the deniers camp.

almost every reference made by the deniers can be shown to be either misrepresented or having significant errors like the Miscolzi paper


PS
hoyt no one is asking you to kneel
what we are suggesting is that the science is sufficiently obvious to warrant a response in the face of an impending loss of habitat

[hoytedow]

OK, Jimbo, just say you are sorry for misusing billion so we can get back to combatting the inane line of faulty logic these dunderheads insist on trying to promote. Unless you really aren't.

[alanrockwood]

Originally Posted by hoytedow

... you are stupid if you think we will EVER kneel to the likes of you...

Hoytedow,

Fine with me. In case you haven't noticed, I have never asked you or anyone else to kneel to me. I would be satisfied just to see you (Hoytedow) place a coherent post on the topic of global warming.

[alanrockwood]

Originally Posted by hoytedow

OK, Jimbo, just say you are sorry for misusing billion so we can get back to combatting the inane line of faulty logic these dunderheads insist on trying to promote. Unless you really aren't.

You are just being silly. You are trying to make an issue out of a non-issue.

[hoytedow]

CO2 is a non-issue which you leftist activists have turned into an issue. Wave the bloody shirt why don't you.

[Boston]

no he is desperately trying to distract from the corner you had the deniers in

its not a mater of random posts
Hoyt is no slouch
what you are experiencing is a deliberate attempt to escape the only logical conclusion of our previous topic
the one that directly refutes that particular aspect of the deniers diatribe

the ocean isn't responsible for the rise in atmospheric co2 content just like there is no relevant level of co2 saturation and no sufficient variation in the suns output to explain the recent warming event.

its a distraction from another failed argument Allan and nothing less

Hoyt knows what he is doing with the inanity of his posts and Jim knows what he is doing by bugging out just when he is cornered and letting Hoyt take over for a while

sorta the same thing with G once his Misclowszi paper ws found to be in error he also simple bugged out for a while rather than admit any error

its a typical response and one of the reasons they earned the name "Deniers"